Frederick Leonard v. M. Thompson ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDERICK E. LEONARD, No. 20-16835
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02767-KJM-DB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
M. THOMPSON; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Former pretrial detainee Frederick E. Leonard appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect and due process claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
decision on cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v.
County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant
Thompson on Leonard’s failure-to-protect claim against defendant Thompson
because, under any potentially applicable standard, Leonard failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Thompson’s alleged conduct caused
Leonard’s injuries. See Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th
Cir. 2008) (to sustain a § 1983 claim, plaintiff must establish that defendant’s
conduct was the cause-in-fact and proximate cause of the claimed injury); see also
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (court should not adopt version of the
facts that is blatantly contradicted by the record).
In his opening brief, Leonard fails to address the dismissal of defendant
Metzger and the grant of summary judgment for defendant Clemente and has
therefore waived his challenges to the district court’s orders regarding those
defendants. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in
appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.
1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are
waived.
2 20-16835
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Leonard’s motion to object (Docket Entry No. 20) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 20-16835